What are the practical and legal implications of a blanket social media ban for under-16s, and what could it mean for children, parents and child welfare in practice? Baljinder Bath explains what a ban and curfew will mean for parents and young people in real terms, explores the balance between child protection, children’s rights and parental responsibility, examines how age-checks and restrictions might be implemented by social media firms, and discusses the legal challenges and unintended consequences of a ban.
On 15th June 2026, the prime minister announced that the UK will ban children under the age of 16 from social media accounts. The announcement follows the Australian Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 which took effect in December 2025 and is currently the subject of two Australian High Court challenges.
The early evidence suggests bans are not effective. The Molly Rose Foundation’s polling of 1,050 Australian children aged 12 to 15 found that 61% of those who held accounts before the ban still have access to at least one; that more than half of former TikTok, YouTube and Instagram users remain on those platforms; and that 70% of those still using restricted sites found it “easy” to get around the ban.
In most cases, the platforms had simply failed to detect or remove under-16 accounts at all.
Over half of the children said the ban had made no difference to their online safety, and one in seven said it had made them feel less safe. The Foundation rightly calls this a “high stakes gamble” that offers parents a false sense of security while letting the platforms off the hook.
A considerable change
The proposed UK ban will prohibit children under 16 from holding accounts on the major social media platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, X and Bluesky, while sparing messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.
An under-16 will simply lose the platforms on which much of adolescent social life now takes place; a 16- or 17-year-old will keep their account, but livestreaming and contact from strangers, including in gaming, will be switched off by default. Ministers are also examining overnight curfews and a halt to infinite scrolling for under-18s, with detail to follow in July. Legislation is promised before Christmas, with the prohibition expected to come into force in Spring 2027.
For parents and young people, the change is considerable in real terms. But children are not merely passive recipients of digital risk. Their rights to information, expression and participation are enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and any restriction must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Weighing the costs
In a joint statement led by the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC and 5Rights and signed by more than 40 children’s organisations as well as online safety groups, academics and bereaved families campaigners, signatories rightly cautioned that a blanket ban risks isolating the very children (LGBTQ and neurodiverse young people among them) for whom the online community is a lifeline.
A curfew would mean the law, rather than the parent, decides when a teenager logs off. This may spare households their nightly battles, but it also displaces parental judgment with a statutory bright line that takes no account of the individual child.
Protection from harm must be weighed against the cost of digital exclusion, and against the principle that parents, not the state, are ordinarily the arbiters of their children’s upbringing.
A better way
How, then, will the ban be policed? Ofcom has been asked to conduct a rapid study on effective age assurance. In practice the firms will reach for three familiar tools: age inference from data already held, biometric age estimation by facial scanning and the uploading of passports or driving licences.
Each requires a child to trade sensitive personal data for entry, in evident tension with the data-minimisation principles of the UK GDPR.
There is, however, a better way, and the legislation should insist upon it. Zero-knowledge proof technology allows a user to demonstrate a single fact (that they are over 16) without disclosing their date of birth, their face, or their identity documents to the platform at all.
The proof is a cryptographic assertion: the platform learns only ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and retains nothing it can later lose or misuse, which satisfies the very data-minimisation duty that document upload and facial scanning offend.
This is not theoretical. The EU has already launched an open-source, privacy preserving age-verification app built on precisely this architecture. If age checks are to be mandatory, parliament should require that they be delivered through such a framework, so that we do not cure a safety crisis by manufacturing a privacy one.
Unenforceable prohibition
A prohibition that may prove unenforceable and includes potentially legally fraught risks creates a cliff edge at 16, with children reaching it without the scaffolding of literacy and resilience.
The better course places the burden where it belongs: on the platforms. Safety must be designed in from the outset, not bolted on after the event.
That means: a systemic duty of care; an end to the exploitative algorithmic and data practices that drive engagement at any cost; a genuine opt-out from algorithmic feeds; privacy preserving age assurance as the default.
Internet literacy must be embedded in our children’s education throughout their childhood. It is high time the technology companies abandoned the ‘move fast and break things’ mentality for a ‘slow down and fix things’ approach.
It’s also time for the government to enhance the Online Safety Act 2023 we already have, rather than following the international herd toward a ban the early evidence suggests will not work.
About the author
Baljinder Bath is family law barrister and experienced children’s law specialist with a strong reputation for handling complex and high-profile cases. She regularly appears against King’s Counsel and is known for her tenacity, precision, and ability to stand her ground in court. Her work spans representation of parents, children and local authorities in complex proceedings, with a consistent emphasis on securing outcomes that uphold the legal and welfare rights of children. She has particular expertise in cases involving non-accidental injuries, including child fatalities, sexual abuse, and fabricated or induced illness and perplexing presentation behaviour. Her work often involves detailed cross-examination of expert witnesses on complex medical issues.
